5 compact gun test, an interesting side result

Jayne

Just here for the memes
Charter Member
Supporting Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
Joined
Dec 16, 2016
Messages
8,047
Location
Unincorporated Wake County
Rating - 100%
34   0   0
Looking at some of the current and past options for small 9mms it's clear we have a lot of choices these days and everyone has an opinion on best for a variety of reasons. I wanted to see what was best in terms of controllability on the clock vs. the usual physical stats on paper or 'feels'.

The contenders we had on hand were G26, G43x, G43, PM9, Hellcat. All guns stock... except for the sights on the glocks which were all trijicon HDs or equivalent which match the hellcat OEM style (big dot up front). Ammo was 115gr Tula steel case because that's how I roll.

IMG_2280.JPG


We didn't want the draw, presentation or movement variables in the data so none of that was on the clock to focus just on control. The drill was a simple 5 round string at an IDPA target at 8 yards. The thinking was that the first shot doesn't matter (you can shoot anything accurately once or slowly), the real delta would be in the controllability of the guns under sustained rapid fire. We used just the split times, and adjusted for misses. Sadly very few runs were clean, so either it wasn't my day or bill drills at 8 yards with subcompacts are hard. Or I suck, whatever.

In addition to the 5 guns themselves, for the G26 and the Hellcat we tried short mags with the pinkie dangling vs. an extended mag that allowed (me) to get a full grip. That gave us 7 sets of data, and I re-ran the 43x again since it was the first one and shot cold, wanted to see if me being warmed up would help. That gave us 16 total runs for these guys. Each gun was run twice back to back with the 43x sets both first and last.

The results were somewhat interesting but not unexpected. My EDC and former EDC were the fastest, and the ones I don't shoot much or weren't mine were not. Not really helpful except that training counts, which we already knew.

What was interesting was the pinkie dangling vs. full grip runs. For both the G26 and the Hellcat, same shooter same ammo same drill, the addition of the longer mag reduced split times by 10% across the board (and more for the Hellcat).

Sadly I didn't have my G34 on hand today to test as well, but I have lots of data on it from before so I'll just use that to draw conclusions:

- going from a full size down to a micro compact, I'm 35% slower

- going from a micro compact to a micro compact with a full length grip, I'm 10% faster

The 10% thing is the real win for the day. For both the G26 and the Hellcat, I can get an easier to conceal and carry package by carrying with the flush fit mags, or for a slightly harder to conceal package I can get 50% more ammo in the mag and a 10% speed boost. Same would hold for the G43 and G43x, a quantifiable advantage beyond just ammo capacity.
 
The modern samurai project has talked about how much having the pinkie finger on the gun helps with control.

Why no P365 in the test?
 
funny you should say that...
One reason for the test is the quantify my choice for new optics ready EDC. My current “small” EDC choices are G43 and G26. Both good guns and well liked but not optics ready.
My criteria are, size, weight, and optics ready (and not being a POS so SCCY and Taurus are out).
The P365 is high on my list but the P365 is not optics ready while the P365X is. So our conclusion that adding enough grip to get your pinkie on is worthwhile makes the P365X the “right answer “.
The Hellcat is a good option to be honest and has a lot going for it and I actually like the Glock type trigger. Problem is to go to a “full size” grip on the Hellcat you get extra barrel. I don’t like “extendo” mags as they pinch my fingers so looks like the P365x is the “winner”
 
so looks like the P365x is the “winner”
Interesting theoretical conclusion, as that's the one gun you didn't actually test. I often find myself in similar situations, but I never feel content until I verify with actual testing, just in case there's some factor I've missed or didn't consider. Which happens. And is part of the fun.
 
Interesting theoretical conclusion, as that's the one gun you didn't actually test. I often find myself in similar situations, but I never feel content until I verify with actual testing, just in case there's some factor I've missed or didn't consider. Which happens. And is part of the fun.
Agreed!
And yes, part of the fun!
 
Especially with his grip style. The “wave grip” I think he calls it. Lots of pressure at bottom of grip with weak hand.

The modern samurai project has talked about how much having the pinkie finger on the gun helps with control.
 
This fascination with split times is...curious.

As one famous old gunman noted:

Speed is fine, but accuracy is final.
The test was designed to measure the controllably of various pistols so the focus on the discussion was on that aspect.
That said we did note and take in to account accuracy by penalizing for non A zone hits in the scoring.
 
Last edited:
This write up is more or less my experience. I was able to shoot my old shield as fast as my P10cs if I was willing to accept the occasional charlie on bill drills. If I slowed down to 100% get my good clean alphas it was about 30% slower.

I've been really wanting to try out a 365XL but I fear I'll probably just end up selling it like I've done my past 3 shields, my j frame, my lcp, my g43....

I'm one of the lucky guys who can conceal a full size pistol with ease. I just don't like the performance loss from subcompacts even if I'm likely to never need it
 
I appreciate doing the time and the math but I’m a bit curious why split times were deemed the metric of choice, to the complete exclusion of the draw.

For a carry gun, my only non-reliability/non-precision concerns are draw-to-first-shot consistency and visibility of the sights when target-focused. A .03 or .05 advantage in split times isn’t going to swing the pendulum (hell, I can’t even react to a change in target position/location that fast), but ease of establishing master grip and having “enough” trigger reach will swing it for me.
 
Last edited:
I appreciate doing the time and the math but I’m a bit curious why split times were deemed the metric of choice, to the complete exclusion of the draw.

For a carry gun, my only non-reliability/non-precision concerns are draw-to-first-shot consistency and visibility of the sights when target-focused. A .03 or .05 advantage in split times isn’t going to swing the pendulum (hell, I can’t even react to a change in target position/location that fast), but ease of establishing master grip and having “enough” trigger reach will swing it for me.
An excellent question. We excluded the draw to remove this variable from the time as we were exclusively looking at controllability vs gun size where the draw is irrelevant.
That said, doing a test to evaluate how a smaller gun effects draw time would be interesting.
 
I appreciate doing the time and the math but I’m a bit curious why split times were deemed the metric of choice, to the complete exclusion of the draw.
Bingo.

Time from signal to shot is a much more practical consideration than how quickly we can pull the trigger in a kill or be killed situation.

Also, "Machinegunning" on a stationary target isn't the same as it is against a living, moving, thinking antagonist. It can easily lead to a miss, and misses on the street can open a huge can of worms if the errant bullet hits someone downrange. If he immediately drops on the first shot, you'll shoot over him with the second. If he's moving laterally, you could shoot behind him. The only thing that we shouldn't expect is for him to stop and stand still after he's shot.

Maybe a better exercise would be to draw and fire, then transition to a second, closely placed target for the followup shots instead of striving for that elusive .1 split.
 
I appreciate doing the time and the math but I’m a bit curious why split times were deemed the metric of choice, to the complete exclusion of the draw.

Just a mater of time for the test. By limiting it to "one" variable we were able to catch something we weren't explicitly testing for in the limited number of runs done. Initially I proposed a 2 target test but it's just too many things to reliably sample in a few runs. Since we ended up with 7 or 8 test configurations that would have been a lot of runs to get any meaningful patterns.

That said, my next test is going to be the whole enchilada. I'm going to limit it to one (or two) gun(s) in two configurations, short mag with pinkie dangling and longer mag with a full grip. The test will be something like:

- contact distance, make space and draw from EDC concealment
- two shots on IDPA target at 3 yards
- one step left/right
- two shots on IDPA target at 7 yards that requires a 45 degree transition
- one shot on USPSA A-zone sized steel at 13 yards that requires a 45 degree transition

Going to have to do a bunch of runs because of the variables involved and the number of chances for me to do something wrong not related to the gun: bad clearing of the concealment, mis-step when breaking contact, etc. I don't want one bad or one good non-gun event to skew things, so we're going to need 5+ runs of each config with each gun. If I just do one then I'll do 10 runs per config alternating. If it's two guns, then half as many runs but we'll still end up with 10 short grip and 10 long grip trials, just spread over two different guns.

There is also the factor of shooter fatigue, so I usually do a cold run, warmup run or two first and then a same conditions final run to see how much I've changed just due to being tired from all the drills.
 
Maybe a better exercise would be to draw and fire, then transition to a second, closely placed target for the followup shots instead of striving for that elusive .1 split.
I like this idea. I practice like that often I just don't drill into the minutiae of it.
 
In a class once the target had 6 different zones highlighted. On the “threat” command a number was called out and you had to shoot it, and immediately another number was called out. Prevented the shooter from “planning” his next shot, you had to react and shoot where told.
 
I like this idea. I practice like that often I just don't drill into the minutiae of it.

We do as well, but in this case the minutia was the point. Lots of 'this is better' claims about everything out there, yet no one has any data to backup those claims. Its all feelings.
 
No doubt. I'm not taking a dig at you. I see the results on the range from the few who make an effort to study this stuff. When I see a guy run a stage in 1/2 the time it took me I couldn't look at him with a straight face and say 'that'll get you killed in a gunfight'
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom